PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming Generates Hot Air



om@umr.edu
2005-May-17, 03:17 PM
Sir David Wallace, treasurer and vice-president of the Royal Society, is reported to have sent a warning:

". . . to all parts of the UK media to be vigilant against attempts to present a distorted view of the scientific evidence about climate change and its potential effects on people and their environments around the world.

I hope that we can count on your support."

The Daily Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml;sessionid=P424SYHVKFZLBQFIQMGSM5OAVCBQW JVC?xml=/opinion/2005/05/16/do1602.xml&sSheet=/opinion/2005/05/16/ixopinion.html&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=23458)

In the 16 May 2005 edition of The Daily Telegraph, Neil Collins takes issue with this attempt to control the debate over mankind's influence on global warning, including the standard hint of a conspiracy:

" "There are some individuals on the fringes, sometimes with financial support from the oil industry, who have been attempting to cast doubt on the scientific consensus on climate change."

What do you think of this effort to stop an open discussion of Naomi Oreskes claim in Nature (Dec. 2004) of a consensus among scientists that Earth's climate is now controlled more by human activity, rather than by solar activity?

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

antoniseb
2005-May-17, 05:10 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 17 2005, 03:17 PM
What do you think of this effort to stop an open discussion of Naomi Oreskes claim in Nature (Dec. 2004) of a consensus among scientists that Earth's climate is now controlled more by human activity, rather than by solar activity?
I am not surprised by either the attempt or the response.
I did have the impression you were on the other side, thinking that the Sun's changes were the bulk of the observed warming, but that doesn't change either your concern or mine in the lame attempt to squash the debate. Thanks for bringing it to light.

GOURDHEAD
2005-May-17, 06:32 PM
What do you think of this effort to stop an open discussion of Naomi Oreskes claim in Nature (Dec. 2004) of a consensus among scientists that Earth's climate is now controlled more by human activity, rather than by solar activity? I'm sure I have a dog in this race, but I'm not sure which one it is. Hard evidence from NASA indicates that CO2 has increased in the last few decades and that IR radiation specific to CO2 as seen from outside Earth's atmosphere is less which seems to prove that humans are having an effect. I've not seen "the whole picture" presented by what appear to be unbiased interests. That said, I'm not sure that those who believe that the effect of humans is minimal (loading the camel with the last straw), by expressing their opinion, are attempting to stop the debate. Perhaps they are attempting to enrich it. Both sides of this debate suffer from way to many unfounded claims or, at least, over-exhuberant extrapolations in the direction of their most feared disaster.

We seem to be heading at great speed toward a substantial wall which is the failure of the fossil fuel powered world economy. It seems prudent to begin braking our speed and adjusting our direction so that we can survive the collision.

om@umr.edu
2005-May-18, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by GOURDHEAD@May 17 2005, 06:32 PM
We seem to be heading at great speed toward a substantial wall which is the failure of the fossil fuel powered world economy. It seems prudent to begin braking our speed and adjusting our direction so that we can survive the collision.
I agree with your concerns, Gourdhead, and delighted that the scientific community is looking at the possibility of man's influence on Earth's climate.

However, I suspect that changes in our climate are controlled mostly by variability in the Sun as it wobbles through space, gravitationally pulled toward the center of mass of the solar system.

See the 1998 paper by Theodor Landscheidt:

Solar Activity: A Dominant Factor in Climate Dynamics (http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm)

The scientific community will lose credibility if it shuts out opposing views, aligns itself on the side of global warming, and then global cooling occurs instead.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

om@umr.edu
2005-May-18, 02:31 PM
Yesterday the National Post published this note on evidence that changes in cosmic ray intensity and variations in solar activity have been driving much of the Earth's climate.

Climate Cover-Up: A Global Hoax (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=b93c1368-27b7-4f55-a60e-5b5d1b1ff38b)

The article cites a comprehensive review by Jan Veizer, one of Canada's top Earth scientists, who concluded that the "empirical observations on all time scales point to celestial phenomena as the principal driver of climate, with greenhouse gases acting only as potential amplifiers."

I agree. The Sun has been highly variable and subject to violent change since its birth, and it remains that way today.

If climatologists find a way to correct for the Sun's variability, their conclusions about influence of greenhouse gases on climate will be taken seriously.

Astronomers and astrophysicists can assist this effort by working to improve our understanding of the solar cycle, solar magnetic fields, and solar eruptions.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

John L
2005-May-19, 06:42 PM
Another thing that doesn't get discussed much in the climate change debate is that CO2 is not the badest of the bad gases that cause a greenhouse effect. Worse than CO2 is good old H2O, and we have people pushing for a hydrogen powered economy that would only produce water vapor as its waste product. That, IMO, would be worse than continuing to use carbon fuels.

antoniseb
2005-May-19, 07:01 PM
Originally posted by John L@May 19 2005, 06:42 PM
That, IMO, would be worse than continuing to use carbon fuels.
Hi John,

I'm not an expert in this, so there might be a counter-intuitive thing I'm not seeing, but it seems to me that our atmosphere is already in an equilibrium state with water, and that it rains out of the air whenever too much gets there. If we put billions of tons a day of water into the atmosphere, it isn't going to stay there, the way billions of tons of CO2 would.

om@umr.edu
2005-May-20, 03:59 AM
Is atmospheric CO2 in equilibrium with the carbonates in sea water?

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

damienpaul
2005-May-20, 09:15 AM
I'm not sure for complete certain, but I do not think that there is equilibrium

wstevenbrown
2005-May-20, 02:59 PM
Is atmospheric CO2 in equilibrium with the carbonates in sea water?

Yes. But it is a dynamic equilibrium whose cycles have a fairly long period, and we as a species might find some of the extrema personally inconvenient.

I worry more about methane-- see earlier rants--S

om@umr.edu
2005-May-24, 02:34 AM
A new study uses meteors to investigate the highest layer of the earth’s atmosphere at the very edge of space, the mesosphere. See Meteors Reveal Climate Change At The "Edge Of Space", University of Bath Press Release, 23 May 2005 (http://www.bath.ac.uk/pr/releases/antarcticradar.htm)

According to the press release, “The mesosphere has been called the miner’s canary for climate change; meaning that it is very sensitive and the changes there may be larger than in any other part of the atmosphere.

“Evidence of these changes comes from sightings of noctilucent clouds, very unusual clouds seen only in polar regions and known to be in the mesosphere. These clouds don’t seem to have been observed before 1885 and may mark the onset of a long-term cooling of the upper atmosphere”.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

antoniseb
2005-May-24, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 24 2005, 02:34 AM
These clouds don’t seem to have been observed before 1885 and may mark the onset of a long-term cooling of the upper atmosphere”.
My understanding is that cooling in the UPPER atmosphere is an artifact of more heat being captured and retained in the LOWER atmosphere, where global warming is measured. I'm not sure what your point is here.

wstevenbrown
2005-May-24, 06:03 PM
These clouds don’t seem to have been observed before 1885 and may mark the onset of a long-term cooling of the upper atmosphere”.

Prior to 1885, we relied upon Poe, de Bergerac. and Aristotle for descriptions of what the upper atmosphere was really like. Nobody hung out at the poles to do any observing. Were you going somewhere with this?

Best regards-- Steve

om@umr.edu
2005-May-25, 05:00 PM
The 23 May 2005 on-line issue of Advances in Space Research contains a related article by G.A. Zherebtsov, V.A. Kovalenko and S.I. Molodykh entitled, "The physical mechanism of the solar variability influence on electrical and climatic characteristics of the troposphere."

The paper contains this statement about global warming (GW) ". . .the most significant and substantiated argument, which makes us doubt that the observed global warming is caused only by the contribution of CO2 of anthropogeneous origin, is the absence of the answer to the question of the causes of the existence of warm and cold periods in the last millennium.

The observed correlations of long-time changes of global temperature and CO2 do not mean that the cause of GW is CO2 because the ocean temperature increase (which is really observed) also leads to the CO2 increase in atmosphere,

i.e., the increase of CO2 could be the consequence, but not the cause of global warming."

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

antoniseb
2005-May-25, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 25 2005, 05:00 PM
i.e., the increase of CO2 could be the consequence, but not the cause of global warming
CO2 is not the only, or most efficient green house gas, but it is the one we are creating, or otherwise releasing into the atmosphere most. Do you have any figures showing the annual tonnage of CO2 added to the atmosphere annually by fossil fuel production & consumption vs the total annual amount being observed in our recent increases?

I don't doubt your idea that warming the ocean can cause further release of dissolved CO2, but without some numbers, I don't think the doubt you're trying to sew here is valid. In the interest of full disclosure, do you or your department get any funding, direct or otherwise, from any major oil producing company? (This is not an accusation, I'm just curious about your position).

om@umr.edu
2005-May-25, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@May 25 2005, 05:19 PM
In the interest of full disclosure, do you or your department get any funding, direct or otherwise, from any major oil producing company? (This is not an accusation, I'm just curious about your position).
What a crafty question !

Are you by any chance in the legal profession?

A dishonest scoundrel in the hire of oil companies to discredit global warming would of course answer dishonestly.

We all have a vested interest in the future of old planet Earth.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

antoniseb
2005-May-26, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 25 2005, 10:06 PM
A dishonest scoundrel in the hire of oil companies to discredit global warming would of course answer dishonestly.
A crafty answer as it neither says yes or no. I assumed there was some middle ground including well meaning people whose sponsors might have self-serving agendas.

om@umr.edu
2005-May-26, 05:49 PM
If you have any evidence that I receive now, or have ever received, "any funding, direct or otherwise, from any major oil producing company", please post it here.

Otherwise, Anton, please refrain from questioning my motives.

The threat of global warming, whether real or illusionary, is the topic at hand.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

antoniseb
2005-May-26, 08:45 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 26 2005, 05:49 PM
If you have any evidence that I receive now, or have ever received, "any funding, direct or otherwise, from any major oil producing company", please post it here.
Please let me be VERY clear about this. I do not now, nor have I ever had any evidence that your expressed doubt about the human causes of global warming are a result of funding by any organization that would benefit from a reduction in social pressure to reduce carbon emissions. In my first post, I was careful to say that this was NOT an accusation.

My question was related to trying to understand WHY you were so vigorously against the idea that there is a substantial fraction of the observed global warming stemming from an increase in human activity related to the production od CO2.

I note here that even now, you have not denied it, but I will not ask about it further, as the debate is more my concern than your motive, and the discussion of your motive has lasted longer than I intended (a simple yes or no would have ended it immediately).

om@umr.edu
2005-May-27, 02:39 AM
Originally posted by antoniseb@May 26 2005, 08:45 PM
I do not now, nor have I ever had any evidence that your expressed doubt about the human causes of global warming are a result of funding by any organization that would benefit from a reduction in social pressure to reduce carbon emissions.
Thanks.

In fact, I am not vigorously against the idea that human activity causes global warming.

But I am vigorously opposed to pseudo-science, no matter which side it supports.

Now can we please return the discussion to possible causes of global warming?

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

om@umr.edu
2005-May-28, 12:42 PM
On 25 May 2005, Senator James M Inhofe gave a speech in the U.S. Senate challenging the notion of a scientific "consensus" about global warming. See

Senator Inhofe's Speech (http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=238162)

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

SpockJim
2005-May-28, 11:54 PM
Very interesting speech. I'm not sure how all this global warming idea got started. I'm not the brightest bulb in a light socket but I know when I am being fed **.

Who ever thought of global warming is a nutcase. The real terminolgy is Climate Changes.

Here's an example-

When I was 13-16 years of age we used to get really nice warm summers anywheres in the 80's to 90's. Today we're wondering where our summer is at. For the past 4 years it has been unusually cooler than normal and we usually get alot of rain. We had a very cold winter and cold srping. Highs in the 50's when we should be in the mid 70's. I think I'm gonna be just like the person that brought up Global Warming, But yet I'm gonna call it Global Cooling. :lol:

I know this is a touchy subject and I'm not sure why. But for some reason there is a group of people out there with a big hard-on for global warming.

damienpaul
2005-May-29, 01:10 AM
There is a theory of global dimming

SpockJim
2005-May-29, 01:47 AM
I'm sorry gang, I just get overworked about issues like this, LOL

om@umr.edu
2005-May-29, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by SpockJim@May 28 2005, 11:54 PM
The real terminolgy is Climate Changes.


Hi, Spock.Jim,

I agree.

Our inability to understand the violent and dynamic Sun may be why we grasp at straws.

A couple of years back Cambridge Conference Network presented Evidence for an Unusually Active Sun since 1940 (http://abob.libs.uga.edu/bobk/ccc/cc102203.html)

Two recent news stories on Universe Today demonstrate progress in confirming that the solar magnetic fields are deep-seated and produce violent disruptions in the Sun. See:

1. Powerful Flare Shakes Up Understanding of the Sun (http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/powerful_flare_sun.html?2452005)

2. Deep Magnetic Roots of the Solar Wind (http://www.swri.org/9what/releases/2005/Solar.htm)

I regard both of these as positive developments and an indication that we are finally moving toward a better scientific understanding of the reasons for Climate Changes.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

om@umr.edu
2005-Jun-10, 12:56 PM
The 9 June 2005 issue of Tech Central Station has an interesting story on the mistakes made by National Science Academies in:

a.) Advocating specific political action rather than

b.) Giving unbiased assessments of the scientific evidence for

Global warming induced by human activity.

Tech Central Station, 9 June 2005 (http://www.techcentralstation.com/060905.html)

The story concludes that this action has damaged the reputations of National Science Academies for unbiased information.

From the concluding paragraph, "The scientists should retire from the battlefield now. They have picked the wrong fight at the wrong time."

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

antoniseb
2005-Jun-10, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Jun 10 2005, 12:56 PM
The 9 June 2005 issue of Tech Central Station has an interesting story
Hmmm... you should perhaps consider that the source itself seems to be very right wing biased. I'd appreciate it if you could keep this kind of editorial opinion off of our forum please. (The same goes for any political bias).

om@umr.edu
2005-Jun-10, 06:40 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Jun 10 2005, 03:02 PM
Hmmm... you should perhaps consider that the source itself seems to be very right wing biased.

I'd appreciate it if you could keep this kind of editorial opinion off of our forum please. (The same goes for any political bias).
Thanks, Anton.

I appreciate your comments.

How do you know "that the source itself seems to be very right wing biased" ?

Thanks for the clarification.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

John L
2005-Jun-10, 07:59 PM
Doc,

You and I don't always see eye to eye, but here we do. There is climate change. There has always been climate change. The one thing the climate has never, EVER been is static. The problem is that I have seen evidence that the temperature is rising, that CO2 emissions are up, but I have seen no proof that the two are corolated. I hear about glacier melt, but only from a very small sample of the huge number of glaciers around the world. I know there was a little ice age a few hundred years ago, and I've seen evidence that the warming trend has been happening ever since then - not a recent creation, and started before there was even an industiral revolution.

Until I see proof that human activities - and only human activities - are responsible for proven warming of the Earth, and all other major natural causes such as solar cycle variability are proven to not exist or be involved, then I have to continue to believe that any changes to the climate are natural and man has had no effect on the length, severity, or duration of the change.


SpockJim,

Global Cooling is a theory that already exists. The same people raging over global warming/climate change are the same people that in the 1970's insisted that human activity was causing global cooling which would result in another ice age. This should not be mistaken for the more recent theory of shutting down the thermo-haline system in the Atlantic as popularized in that Day After Tomorrow movie. That came about much more recently.

om@umr.edu
2005-Jun-12, 05:01 PM
Originally posted by John L@Jun 10 2005, 07:59 PM
There is climate change. There has always been climate change. The one thing the climate has never, EVER been is static.

Hi, John, L.

You "hit the nail on its head".

I couldn't have said it better.

I posted a response but it was deleted.

Climatologists seem to have overlooked some obvious facts:

a.) The Sun has the dominant influence over Earth's climate.

b.) The Sun is violent and dynamic, with magnetic fields that poke through its surface periodically in 11-year cycles, causing solar flares and eruptions.

c.) Those deep-seated solar magnetic fields extend out to the Earth and the other little balls of dirt with iron cores close to the Sun.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

John L
2005-Jun-13, 04:17 PM
Doc,

Your point c is very appropriate right now. I read just last week about a recent proton storm released earlier this year that was faster than any solar theory predicted possible. They believe that the solar magnetic field at the site of the coronal mass ejection was directly connected to the Earth's magnetic field and this accelerated the protons on a super fast highway to the Earth. Rather than having hours or days to warn satelite operators and astronauts in the ISS, they had only minutes.

om@umr.edu
2005-Jun-13, 04:59 PM
You are right, John L.

You pointed out earlier that "There is climate change. There has always been climate change. The one thing the climate has never, EVER been is static."

We also suspect that There is change in solar activity. There has always been change in solar activity. The one thing the Sun has never, EVER been is static.

Now all we have to do is to convince climatologist that there may be a link between these.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Guest
2005-Jun-17, 12:38 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Jun 13 2005, 04:59 PM
You are right, John L.

You pointed out earlier that "There is climate change. There has always been climate change. The one thing the climate has never, EVER been is static."

We also suspect that There is change in solar activity. There has always been change in solar activity. The one thing the Sun has never, EVER been is static.

Now all we have to do is to convince climatologist that there may be a link between these.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om
I am enroute to Russia and then to Portugal where I will try to communicate these two points and the internal operation of the Sun at

1. The Non-Accelerator New Physics 2005, NANP'05 conference in Dubna, Russia, and then at

2. The First Crisis in Cosmology Conference, CCC-1 in nothern Portugal.

Overheads are near the top of my web page, in an article entitled "The Sun Is A Magnetic Plasma Diffuser That Controls Earth's Climate"

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

ASEI
2005-Jun-17, 06:24 PM
Even assuming that the environmentalists are completely correct (a stretch for the same movement that gave us Ehrlich and Malthus), you still have to ask yourself:

Is getting a planet that is 4C cooler on average in a few hundred years really worth eschewing the internal combustion engine? Considering that the internal combustion engine, and other combustion powered processes make our food, transportation, power, water purification, automated manufacturing, materials processing, ect even possible, I think it's a stretch to imagine a downside big enough to justify restraining its use. Before the IC engine, we were scratching on the dirt with horses and plows! (Horses by the way, generate pollution that is much less easy to deal with) The only materials we could realistically use en-masse were wood and plant fibers! Now we can reshape the very landscape to suit our needs. We have everything from bulk steel and aluminum to composites and concrete available for our use. I say: keep the IC engine regardless. Even if the worst these environmentalists can conjure comes true (and the realistic worst case scenario is really a gradual centuries long process of warming and sea level rise), then the IC engine can help us adapt and thrive regardless.

GOURDHEAD
2005-Jun-19, 12:34 PM
Is getting a planet that is 4C cooler on average in a few hundred years really worth eschewing the internal combustion engine? .......Even if the worst these environmentalists can conjure comes true (and the realistic worst case scenario is really a gradual centuries long process of warming and sea level rise), then the IC engine can help us adapt and thrive regardless. The more pressing problem arises from the IC engine eschewing us because we run out of fossil fuels before we get replacement energy sources in place. Not correcting our focus is as safe as swimming with mosasaurs. Maybe they like fish better or won't notice us.

s-i-a
2005-Jun-20, 12:44 AM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@May 20 2005, 03:59 AM
Is atmospheric CO2 in equilibrium with the carbonates in sea water?

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om
The carbon dioxide’s concentration is striving towards its constant equilibrium level that is depending on natural laws, such as gravitation and the physical properties of the carbon dioxide:
In gas phase CO2 is heavier than air, and when compressed by the 400 meters depth in the oceans to about 40 atmospheres, it is transformed to liquid phase that is heavier than water. During the compression the temperature is increasing that is warming the oceans down to 3000 meters. But that is a small heat source compared with the underwater vulcanos.
This causes a very acid milieu that dissolves shells and reacts into chemically compounds with water and calcium and other matter. That materials in molecular form follow the cold bottom streams that is flow up outside the east-coasts of Chile and Africa. There this material-rich water gives food for algea and plankton and fish.
There must be a surplus of CO2 that sinks into the sediment layer and by the times it reacts with hydrogen radicals that came from the underlying magma and produce the hydro-carbonates that we are prospecting and drilling after as rude-oil and natural gas.

Consequently the carbon dioxide level is self regulating.
The nature is clever as ever.

Ingvar, Sweden
http://www.theuniphysics.info

piersdad
2005-Jun-20, 10:41 AM
it is transformed to liquid phase that is heavier than water. During the compression the temperature is increasing that is warming the oceans down to 3000 meters. But that is a small heat source compared with the underwater vulcanos.
the amount of heat from underwater volcanos would be but a flea bite to an elephant.
if CO2 became heavier under compression and deposited on the lower sea floor then there would be ample evidence of this and easily verified and strange ive never heard about it.

s-i-a
2005-Jun-21, 11:04 PM
Originally posted by piersdad@Jun 20 2005, 09:06 PM

once adsorbed in the water at great depths you say it will sink to the sea floor.
so why don’t we see the same in a soda water bottle where the same thing happens.
Carbon dioxide is dissolved in the oceans to a specific level that is depending on the depth. This also implies that carbon dioxide has a specific buoyancy.

Let us take the analogy with a floating iceberg that always has 10 percent of its volume over the water level.
Carbon dioxide is also “floating” with a certain part dissolved or absorbed and partly sink into the oceans but its buoyancy when it is lighter than water (over ca. 360 meters depth) lifts the certain atmospheric part of carbon dioxide over the ocean's level and consequently regulates the level in the atmosphere. Carbon dioxides buoyancy capacity depends on its specific weight that increases with higher pressure that increases with the depth in the oceans.

With more emissions of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, as heavier is the partial pressure on the ocean’s surface and as more is dissolved (absorbed), and as more is sinking to the depth where the carbon dioxide is compressed to higher density than the water's specific weight where it is sinking to towards the ocean’s bottom. Of course there are chemical bounds and reactions with water and calcium and other matter.

According to the experts this critical pressure is 36 atm. which implies 360 meters depth. At greater depth the pressure is higher and carbon dioxide is heavier than water – and therefore it sinks. This is the strange and long searched sink that automatically and naturally reduces the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere to an equilibrium level in that linked system of ocean and atmosphere. This is the sink where all surplus of human made carbon dioxide disappears.

At further depth in the ocean and by that higher pressure the water is more aggressively acid. This implies that at more than about 3000 meters where the pressure is 300 atm., it is well known by observation (but misinterpreted how and why) all organic matters that have sunk to the bottom are dissolved. The bottom can be white of shells down to that level, but at larger depth the color of the bottom is depending on the sand sediment.

This intellectual discovery and analysis is mine.
I have lectured about it and discussed it with interested audiences on seminars and conferences.
I have asked science journals to let me publish an article, which they refused because it is not known before (?).
I have discussed with experts that agree but they are afraid to violate the consensus of the fundamentalists in greenhouse community.
I have, during many years, sent hundreds of letters and e-mails to milieu politicians and newspaper, but no one has answered: nobody of them is interested to know the truth – because money makes them to liars.

Ingvar, Sweden

piersdad
2005-Jun-22, 01:13 AM
I am only school boy level chemistry
question ?
why is the oxygen nitrogen and other dissolved elements also separating out into a sink/ float level.
If this is so then we have really missed a great way to mine magnesium.

how come fish survive at depths of over 360 meters where you claim acidity is high.
is there any evidence of this CO2 settling in the sediments of the ocean present and past.
Surely lime stone deposits above ground that contain fossils from depths of 3000 meters and from the depths of the sea will show evidence of this

ASEI
2005-Jun-22, 02:23 AM
The more pressing problem arises from the IC engine eschewing us because we run out of fossil fuels before we get replacement energy sources in place.

This is an entirely seperate issue from global warming though. We have processes now that can mine shale oil. NIMBY is the problem, as usual. If we were allowed to do so, America could probably support itself in terms of oil production. We haven't even begun to explore offshore mining possibilities. We probably have a few hundred years left of gasoline.

Economically, combustion is present in so many important processes that the only way to replace them while maintaining our present civilization is to find something more powerful and less complicated to replace it with. Only one such energy source comes to mind, and it was killed in the 60s with a bad sci-fi movie.

suntrack2
2005-Jun-25, 09:06 AM
INCREASE FORESTS ON EARTH TO MINIMISE THIS PROBLEM OF WARMING OF EARTH :

Mass industrialization, growing constructions on earth, growing pollution (water,air,noise,oil,petrol,diesel,industrial waste,river pollution due to incoming industrial water into it, sea pollution ( but it seem minimize)

,uncontrolled population( who are also responsible to make paper waste,plastic waste, and other dirt )
cutting forest zones, destruction by the major fire incidents in the forests, the poisonous gasses are growing on earth, when these are meeting in the sky the mansoon and rain movement is disturbed,

The clouds are so week in falling rains, sunlight is directly coming perpendicular on middle asia region of the earth(heat is regenerating by the stored heat in this zone), co2, carbon monoxides, greenhouse gasses, and some more other gasses are capturing the major places in the surround region of the earth,

Earth has a common behavior of "change", the great changes are taking place so for earth is concern, pressure on earth is changing, sea water levels are increasing substantially, the ozone is getting more damage and its holes are expanding, the harmful rays are reaching on earth directly.

There is need to increase forestry on earth, pure water and pure air both are most essential to make earth's environment healthy, keep river basins clean, keep sea beaches clean, plastic recycling processing plant expansion programs,

Otherwise, the global warming will start to ring the final alarm for this planet, then we will just seat in the chairs by putting our hand on to other hand, we will become spectator later if we are not cautious today,

If we are not taking care of today, if we are not aware with this great problem of global warming today, if we are not going to implement the rapid actions over the heat rising, pollution and other related aspects, to stop wars (wars creates extra heat in the atmosphere) worldwide, then only we will be able to live on earth without worries, without tensions, with a fine health and wealth.

Sunil.

om@umr.edu
2005-Jul-04, 01:15 AM
There are news reports that the Russian National Academy of Sciences has publicly corrected the mistaken impression of its endorsement of global warming induced by human activities.

When I get to my office I will try to find the news story and post a link to it here.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

Tom2Mars
2005-Jul-04, 08:11 AM
Reduce waste(generation and transmission losses)> increase efficiency> reduce energy consumption> save money> use money for space travel> pump Titan dry.

Oh, Yeah... And, plant a tree, just in case. ;)

om@umr.edu
2005-Jul-05, 03:02 AM
Here is some of the news on the Kyoto protocol to the UN convention on climate change prior to the G8 summit in Scotland this week.

1. Russian Academy of Sciences calls on President to withdraw unauthorized signature from climate statement (http://en.rian.ru/science/20050701/40831419.html)

2. Robert J. Samuelson reports on Greenhouse Hyprocrisy in the Washington Post (http://www.sepp.org/weekwas/2005/July%202.htm)

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

om@umr.edu
2005-Jul-05, 03:22 PM
Advances in Space Research 35, issue 3 (2005) pp. 451-457 (http://tinyurl.com/d3c2e) is a new paper showing that solar varibility has a greater impact on Earth's climate than previously thought.

The title is "Influence of solar 11-year variability on chemical composition of the stratosphere and mesosphere simulated with a chemistry-climate model" and the authors are T. Egorova [a,b], E. Rozanov [a,b], V. Zubov [c], W. Schmutz [b], and Th. Peter [a]

[a] Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science, Hoenggerberg HPP, ETH, Zürich CH-8093, Switzerland
[b] Physical-Meteorological Observatory, World Radiation Center, Dorfstrasse 3, Davos 7260, Switzerland
[c] Main Geophysical Observatory, 7 Karbyshev street, St. Petersburg 194021, Russia

The paper:

a.) Discusses the influence of the ultraviolet spectral irradiance variability during the solar cycle on the chemical composition of the stratosphere and mesosphere,

b.) Documents the response of several important atmospheric species (CH4, N2O, H2O, CF2Cl2, OH, HO2, NO2 and ClO) to the observed increase of the solar irradiance from minimum to maximum of the 11-year solar activity cycle, and

c.) Concludes that solar variability has a significant influence on the chemical composition of the stratosphere and mesosphere and on the species that are responsible for destruction of ozone, methane, nitrous oxide and CFCs.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

John L
2005-Jul-05, 06:14 PM
Doc O,

But the supposed ozone hole problem and global warming are two different issues. I have not seen any hard data that shows a basically uniformly thick ozone layer covering the entire globe followed by a never before seen ozone hole. From what I've read, and please correct me by linking to the revelent data if I'm wrong, is that when we began trying to measure the composition of the atmosphere over the antarctic and artic that we suddenly discovered that there were holes in the ozone layer. Some scientist then decided that it must be our fault even though we had never measured the polar ozone layer before and seen no hole.

So in a sense they are similar then, as they are both about scientists jumping to conclusions and blaming mankind on problems that are completely natural and beyond our ability to cause, control, or change.

om@umr.edu
2005-Jul-05, 10:39 PM
Here's more news headlines on the eve of the G8 summit meeting in Scotland.

1. "Anti-Bush Gibe by Royal Society Sparks Climate Change Row" The Times Online, 5 July 2005 (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,22649-1681145,00.html)

2. "Bush Not Warming To Kyoto: Even The Science "Consensus" Is Falling Apart" The National Business Review, 5 July 2005 (http://www.nbr.co.nz/home/column_article.asp?id=12338&cid=4&cname=Business+Today)

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

John L
2005-Jul-05, 10:51 PM
Thanks Doc! I find it interesting that the supposed unanimous view of the academies of science of all these nations comes from statements made as many as 13 YEARS AGO! And with the Russians pulling back, too, it looks like not even the proponents of this can agree...

antoniseb
2005-Jul-05, 10:57 PM
Originally posted by om@umr.edu@Jul 5 2005, 10:39 PM
Here's more news headlines on the eve of the G8 summit meeting in Scotland.
Dr. Manuel, these are editorials, not scientific papers. I have asked you previously to not post links to these things here. If you have some science backing up your position, go ahead and post it, but please keep the politics out of it.

John L
2005-Jul-06, 03:57 AM
We all know the rules, but on Doc O'c behalf I'd like to say that global warming is a political issue.

John L
2005-Jul-06, 04:51 AM
And here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4636115.stm) is yet another recent discovery refuting the idea that any possible current waring trend could not be natural...

aeolus
2005-Jul-06, 05:11 AM
Originally posted by John L@Jul 6 2005, 03:57 AM
We all know the rules, but on Doc O'c behalf I'd like to say that global warming is a political issue.
Doesn't have to be; it only is because people take it to the extremes. Nothing has been proven or disproven, there's a chance a human influence on global warming might exist, and a chance it might not. It only becomes political when people break into two different camps that say either:

"the oceans are going to melt and we'll all die if we don't ride our bicycles to work starting tomorrow"

or

"You can't prove anything and looking into the issue any further will obliterate our economy"

Balance. That's what it's all about, IMO.

antoniseb
2005-Jul-06, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by aeolus@Jul 6 2005, 05:11 AM
Balance. That's what it's all about
You've hit the nail on the head. There are two sides, and all we're hearing is opinions in this thread. There is a New Scientist article this morning on this topic, and it is more about the politics than the science:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7632

Are we seeing anything that is using SOHO and data from other probes to track whether a changing Sun maps to the rises and falls of global warming (as implied should be the case from Dr. Manuel's argument?) No, we haven't seen that (from either side). Are we seeing recent charts showing a continued connection between CO2 (or Methane, or N2O4) levels and global temperature. No, we haven't seen that either.

This thread has pretty much been exclusively about 'hot air' as Dr. Manuel called it when he started the thread. If we are going to discuss this topic here in this forum, I'd strongly prefer to keep it about the science, and not about which nations are backing away from Kyoto, or which columnists side with the Bush team, and which don't. Editorial columns from "National Business Review" should rarely find a place in the UT forum, and this one was not an exception.

om@umr.edu
2005-Jul-06, 04:14 PM
Originally posted by antoniseb@Jul 5 2005, 10:57 PM
Dr. Manuel, these are editorials, not scientific papers. I have asked you previously to not post links to these things here. If you have some science backing up your position, go ahead and post it, but please keep the politics out of it.
I apologize, Anton, for posting information about the shifting political sands in the debate over global warming.

The research article cited above [Advances in Space Research 35, issue 3 (2005) pp. 451-457] is probably worthwhile for anyone who wonders if solar varibility has an impact on our climate.

With kind regards,

Oliver
http://www.umr.edu/~om

ASEI
2005-Jul-06, 05:00 PM
[/science]
Oh, give me a break. The forces driving the climate change prophecy of doom are intensely political, and see no problem fighting the debate on the political field rather than the scientific/experimentation plane, so I don't see why political rebuttals aren't also in order.

On the political plane, global climate change is just one of many theories that have been grasped at over the decades by the environmental socialists and environmental anti-industrialists. The trend had it's roots in the concept of the noble savage and Malthus, but gained significant power in the modern context with Ehrlich's ridiculous predictions of global starvation and deforestation. His proposals were backed up only with poorly devised computer simulations that couldn't even be shown to to successfully post-dict the past, yet were swallowed whole by the green movements in their drive to halt and curtail western capitalism. It became unquestionable religious fact that by the year 1990, 3/4s of the world would be starving due to food shortages, metals and other resources would become too scarce for the average joe to buy or use, and that "you would have to see a tree in a museum". Our only hope was supposed to be placing the world economy under the control of technocrats, who alone had the wisdom to avoid the coming resource crash brought on by irresponsible free markets, and lead us all to a magical age of prosperity by force and fiat.
In fact, all environmental doom prophecies have fallen flat on their face, many having been almost exactly wrong, and like so many other irrationally held paranoid beliefs of apocalyptic doom and disaster, have been pushed further and further into the not-so-distant future, and modified whenever the fundamental tenents are shown to be faulty, absurd, or otherwise untenable.
Food is ridiculously abundant, so are materials, capitalists have proven better stewards of forestation and the environment than socialists have. So now that capitalism has provided abundance and universal access to resources, it is the process of producing that abundance that must be attacked. Production itself, having proven itself feasable, must be villified by invoking the wrath of angry mother nature.

Before we do anything these quasi-religious zealots tell us to, we should expect that they at least get their story consistently straight. Global climate change is precisely worded thus because these people have been reversing their infallible predictions at every bump in the weather! First it was Global cooling and particulate winter. Then it was global warming, and sea level rise. Then it was global warming that induces global cooling later. Then it was global warming due to us ceasing coal burning, and reductions in particulates. All have had their particular models, all have not been shown to even postdict the geological past, much less predict the future any better than a slot machine.

When you really don't have a clue what the weather next year is going to be, isn't "Global climate change" so much safer than committing to a specific model and seeing if it works? That way, the politicians can switch from doomsday scenario to doomsday scenario with the shifting of the jetstreams, and keep people consistently worked up, without having to really know what will happen. It doesn't matter what the climate is actually doing, it's capitalism and industry that is doing it by God, and it's going to kill us all eventually! One only has to look at some of the "well even if I'm wrong, I'm still right, and we still need power to effect the changes that we want" type arguments posted here to see that this isn't about specific causes and effects and proposed solutions. It is about something else entirely.

Perhaps there is good science behind one or the other of these models, (or perhaps even behind one of these non-anthropocentric climate models that are regularly pillioried in political cirlces). But science isn't what's driving the green movements. It's politics pure and simple. This is about socialism versus capitalism, round II.
[science]

om@umr.edu
2005-Jul-06, 05:52 PM
I agree.